Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 11^th April 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11^th April 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Quentin Webb declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(During the discussion for Agenda Item 4(1) Councillor Quentin Webb declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he lived near to the roundabout being discussed. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/03290/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application for demolition of farmyard buildings, retention of The Old Farmhouse and the erection of up to 21 new dwellings, improved vehicular access off Newbury Road, car parking, public open space and landscaping.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Ruth Cottingham, Parish Council representative, Mr Mike Belcher, adjacent Parish Council representative and Mr Nick Roberts/Mr Lance Flannigan, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Ms Cottingham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Parish Council had not objected to the application as it welcomed the pedestrian and cycle access from Lipscomb Close to Station Road.

·         Holy Trinity Church was opposite Lipsomb Close and did not have a car park. This caused visitors to the Church to use Lipsomb Close for parking.

·         If an access to Lipsomb Close was provided as part of the development, there was concern that Lipsomb Close would become a rat run.

·         Any access to the site would have an impact upon the B4009. The roundabout that linked Priors Court Road to Station Road was particularly dangerous.

·         There were regularly near misses between vehicles using the roundabout. Councillor  Cottingham was aware through social media that an accident had occurred on the roundabout that morning at 9.30am.

·         The Parish Council had written to West Berkshire Council (WBC) expressing that they would like to take on the responsibility for more open spaces. 

·         The applicant had plans for the open space and ecological mitigation area, which did not involve handing it over to WBC.

Councillor Richard Crumly noted that Ms Cottingham had referred to the roundabout at the end of Priors Court Road as dangerous and asked for clarification on her reasons. Ms Cottingham stated that the roundabout was merely a dot in the middle of a crossroad and she hoped that if the development was granted permission that some Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money could be allocated to improving the roundabout. Councillor Crumly asked what improvements the Parish Council would like to see, for example lighting. Ms Cottingham reported that the roundabout was already lit however, it needed to be bigger, which she was aware would be difficult. She believed that pavements had been introduced into the village in 1968 and as a result the property at the north west of the village had lost some of its garden. The verge on the north west corner was the problem. There was also a Service Station, which belonged to a separate landowner.

Mr Belcher in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had only just become aware that the plans had been changed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/03334/FULD in respect of the demolition of outbuildings and erection of 1 x two bedroom, 2 x three bedroom dwellings and associated works.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Ruth Cottingham, Parish Council representative, and Andrew Bunyan, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillor Cottinghan in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

The Parish Council’s main concern was parking on the site. It was not felt that the two sets of three parking places would be of great benefit due to the tandem design.

The Parish Council was of the view that tandem parking would make the parking situation worse and would lead to further parking long the B4009, where there was a pinch point.

Ms Cottingham had anecdotal evidence that pedestrians had nearly been involved in accidents involving HGVs and buses using the road.

It was not felt that the application was in keeping with the 2013 parking policy, which required adequate parking in an area where public transport links were very poor.

The Parish Council did welcome the demolition of the outbuildings however, it was felt the proposal for the front of the site would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

If the Committee were minded to approve the application, the Parish Council hoped that some CIL money could be allocated to improving road safety in Hermitage.

The flats opposite the site, had white lines on the road in front of the pavement and it was hoped that the same could be done outside of the application site.

If was unknown if the developer had submitted any clear plans to ensure road safety during the time of construction..

Mr Bunyan in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The build density proposed for the site was too high. If the two bedroomed house was removed from the proposal, it would allow additional site space for parking.

·         The proposal would have a negative impact on the street scene.

·         Mr Bunyan was not aware of a construction plan to show how development would take place without  impacting upon the road.

·         There was concern that development could stretch to the wooded area surrounding the site.

·         The proposed access was on a pinch point in the B4009.

·         Mr Bunyan noted that the Planning Officer had commented that the former butchers on the site would have caused an increase in traffic to the area. He disagreed with this as the butchers had been largely a commercial business that provided delivery. There was only ever an increase in traffic on a Saturday morning.

·         The access was dangerous for residents leaving the application site. A number of Members had needed to be assisted when leaving the site after the site visit.

·         The two bedroom house would alter the street scene and would be visually overcrowded.

·         The parking proposed was completely impractical in Mr Bunyan’s view  and would require those using it to reverse out onto the B4009.

·         The Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.